← Issue №6/ week of Aug 9, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 16 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 16, in full

most clinically useful first · the 2 the issue led with are ruled in green
Everything here, in one line each16
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=2,973 · Aug 13, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Pragmatic real-world evaluation of computer-aided detection in colonoscopy: A within-endoscopist comparative study.

New evidencecomputer-aided detectioncolonoscopyadenomaendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider adopting computer-aided detection systems in routine colonoscopy as an adjunctive tool. CADe remains independently associated with improved adenoma detection (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55, p=0.002) after adjustment for endoscopist variation, confirming incremental benefit beyond endoscopy technique alone.
What it foundComputer-aided detection improved adenoma detection rate from 30.7% to 34.4% (aOR 1.31, 95%CI 1.11-1.55, p=0.002) and adenoma+clinically significant serrated polyp detection from 35.8% to 40.3% in a pragmatic real-world study of 2973 colonoscopies with within-endoscopist comparison.
ContextRandomised trials had shown CADe improves adenoma detection, but real-world translation remained uncertain with inconsistent results across observational studies. This pragmatic multicentre study confirms CADe provides independent benefit (aOR 1.31 after accounting for endoscopist factors), though the effect attenuates with endoscopist adjustment, revealing endoscopist skill as a substantial driver of detection rate.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakewhether to incorporate computer-aided detection technology during colonoscopy screening

… Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. … The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Bernardes C … Pimentel-Nunes P · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=876 · Aug 10, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Long-term risk of metachronous gastric neoplasms after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.

New evidenceESDepidemiologybiomarker
Clinical takeawayExtend endoscopic surveillance beyond 5 years after curative ESD for early gastric cancer, particularly in patients with family history of gastric cancer or extensive intestinal metaplasia. All detected metachronous neoplasms were early-stage (stage I) with no gastric cancer-related deaths.
What it foundMetachronous gastric neoplasms accumulated to 26.65% cumulative incidence by 10 years after curative ESD (vs. 10.79% at 5 years). Independent predictors were family history of gastric cancer (aHR 2.12, 95% CI 1.32-3.41) and extensive intestinal metaplasia (aHR 6.50, 95% CI 3.73-11.36); histological upgrade emerged as a risk factor only in the late period (P interaction = 0.005).
ContextPrior surveillance protocols often limited follow-up to 5 years; this study establishes that metachronous neoplasm risk continues accumulating beyond that threshold, providing risk factors to identify patients requiring extended surveillance.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34)

Decision at stakeLong-term risk stratification and surveillance protocols after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

… Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform individual gastric risk assessment and staging of precancerous conditions at first-time gastroscopy, irrespective of the patient's country of origin. Use high quality endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, for screening, diagnosis and staging of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia and after endoscopic therapy; VCE guides the biopsy site, with random biopsies taken only when there are no endoscopically suspected changes. Take biopsies from at least two topographic sites, 2 from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, VCE-guided, in two separate, clearly labeled vials; an additional incisura biopsy is optional, not required. Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation). Follow up patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3+ or EGGIM 5+) OR an advanced histological stage that reaches OLGA/OLGIM III/IV, severe atrophy or intestinal metaplasia and/or significant changes in both antrum and corpus rising to stage III/IV, not any intestinal metaplasia or any antrum-plus-corpus involvement on its own, with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of country of origin (strong recommendation, moderate quality). Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. Eradicate H. pylori in all patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy. Discontinue or do not start gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80, and weigh comorbidities when planning treatment of superficial lesions. Advise smoking cessation; low-dose daily aspirin may be considered for gastric cancer prevention only in selected individuals already at high cardiovascular risk. For visible neoplasia, use ESD for differentiated lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low or high grade) or intramucosal carcinoma (any size if not ulcerated, or ≤30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions ≤10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy. At the population level, endoscopic screening is suggested every 2-3 years in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate >20 per 100,000 person-years), every 5 years in intermediate-risk regions (ASR 10-20) only if cost-effectiveness has been proven, and not at all in low-risk regions (ASR <10).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Park JS … Noh CK · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=965,960 · Aug 7, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Diagnostic and Clinical Performance of Single-Use Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

New evidencesystematic reviewmeta-analysisERCPendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayMaintain current practice with reusable endoscopes and rigorous reprocessing protocols. Single-use devices offer no diagnostic or technical advantage, and documented infection risk from reusable endoscopes is low. For ERCP specifically, single-use duodenoscopes (EXALT Model D) required conversion to reusable in 7% of procedures, limiting their utility as a standalone option.
What it foundSingle-use endoscopes demonstrated similar or slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy and technical performance compared with reusable models; estimated infection risk from reusable endoscopes was 0.01% to 0.8%, although detection and reporting bias likely affected these estimates.
ContextPrior concerns about pathogen transmission drove interest in single-use endoscopes as a safer alternative. This meta-analysis confirms that properly reprocessed reusable endoscopes carry acceptably low infection risk (0.01-0.8%) and demonstrate comparable or superior diagnostic performance to single-use alternatives.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Tyldesley-Marshall N … Arasaradnam R · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=939 · Aug 10, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Advanced cannulation techniques vs early EUS-BD in case of difficult biliary cannulation in patients with DMBO: an international propensity score-matched analysis.

New evidenceERCPEUSbiliary stricture
Clinical takeawayWhen standard biliary cannulation fails at ERCP in a patient with malignant obstruction and dilated common bile duct (>12 mm), consider early EUS-guided drainage as the preferred alternative to advanced cannulation techniques if EUS expertise is available. The lower adverse event rate (particularly post-procedural pancreatitis at 12% with advanced ERCP) and higher technical success with EUS-BD support its use as a safer, more technically effective option for failed biliary access.
What it foundIn patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed standard ERCP cannulation, early EUS-guided biliary drainage (eEUS-BD) was associated with lower adverse event rates (9.3% vs 18.2%, p<0.01) and higher technical success (95.9% vs 82.0%, p<0.01) compared to advanced ERCP cannulation techniques, while clinical success was comparable (96.4% vs 94.5%, p=0.89).
ContextAdvanced ERCP cannulation techniques have been the traditional next step after failed standard cannulation, but carry substantial post-procedure pancreatitis risk. This propensity score-matched comparison suggests EUS-BD should move earlier in the salvage algorithm for DMBO with difficult cannulation, potentially reordering the escalation pathway.
Measured against the standard of care· ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis)

Decision at stakeWhen standard ERCP cannulation fails in distal malignant biliary obstruction, whether to escalate with advanced ERCP techniques or pivot to EUS-guided biliary drainage

… For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. … Endoscopic drainage is preferred over surgery or PTBD for inoperable obstruction. … For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or ERCP combined with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-BD) is preferred over primary PTBD, with PTBD as a complement if needed. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnosis is unchanged and still follows the separate ESGE diagnostic guideline (Endoscopy 2025;57:166-185). Start with MRI/MRCP plus laboratory tests, read CA19-9 only after decompression, and check IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected. For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. For perihilar strictures, sample by ERCP first and move to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy if the result is indeterminate. Do not place an uncovered SEMS (USEMS) until malignancy is confirmed. Management now follows the 2026 ESGE biliary stricture management guideline, which replaces the 2018 stenting guideline and brings it into line with the 2022 therapeutic EUS guideline. Benign: post-cholecystectomy strictures get temporary multiple plastic stents (MPSs), exchanged every 3-4 months with as many stents as possible, for about 12 months. A fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) is an option only if the stricture is more than 2 cm below the hepatic confluence or the patient will not comply with repeated ERCPs. Anastomotic strictures after liver transplant get MPSs, or a temporary FCSEMS if more than 2 cm below the confluence. Nonanastomotic post-transplant strictures that can be treated endoscopically get MPSs plus balloon dilation if needed. Chronic pancreatitis strictures get a temporary 8-10 mm FCSEMS for 6-12 months. High-grade PSC strictures get balloon dilation alone, with no stent, because stenting adds no benefit and may add adverse events. Endotherapy is indicated for a benign stricture with liver tests raised for more than 1 month and/or cholangitis. Malignant distal: drain before surgery only selectively (cholangitis, severe jaundice or pruritus, delayed surgery). When drainage is needed before surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, or for palliation, place a 10-mm SEMS endoscopically. Endoscopic drainage is preferred over surgery or PTBD for inoperable obstruction. Malignant hilar: manage in high-volume centres with a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team (MDT). ERCP is preferred over PTBD for preoperative drainage. Palliate Bismuth I-II with ERCP. For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or ERCP combined with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-BD) is preferred over primary PTBD, with PTBD as a complement if needed. For proven Bismuth II-IV, aim to drain more than 50%, ideally 70% or more, of the viable nonatrophic liver volume using several routes as needed. Use plastic stents when the drainage strategy is undefined or the centre is not expert. USEMS are for expert centres when the diagnosis is proven, the tumour is unresectable, and complete drainage is predicted. After failed or unfeasible ERCP, EUS-BD is recommended over PTBD. Use hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) if there is a duodenal stricture, and EUS-HGS or choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) if there is not. PTBD is used if EUS-BD fails. In surgically altered anatomy, benign disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP first; malignant disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP or EUS-BD. Give antibiotics before ERCP in selected cases: predicted incomplete drainage, hilar strictures, immunocompromised patients, PSC, cholangioscopy. This follows the ESGE ERCP-adverse-events guideline. Etiology-specific care (Strasberg injuries, IgG4-SC, Mirizzi, choledochal cysts) is unchanged.

ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Spadaccini M … ACT-EUS Study Group · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=21 · Aug 10, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Endoscopic Management of Cystic Duct Remnant Stones Causing Post-Cholecystectomy Syndrome: A Multi-Center Experience.

Practice-changingERCPcholedocholithiasishealth services
Clinical takeawayFor symptomatic cystic duct remnant stones causing post-cholecystectomy syndrome, ERCP is a less-invasive alternative to surgical excision. Anticipate escalation to cholangioscopy in approximately 43% of cases, with EHL required in most cholangioscopy cases (89%). Counsel patients on a 10% risk of mild post-ERCP pancreatitis.
What it foundERCP achieved complete stone clearance in 95% (20/21) and clinical success in 91% (19/21) of 21 patients with post-cholecystectomy syndrome from cystic duct remnant stones. Balloon sweep alone succeeded in 43%; cholangioscopy was required in 43%, with EHL used in 89% of those cholangioscopy cases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 10% (2/21), both mild.
ContextCystic duct remnant stones are an underrecognized cause of post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Surgery was traditionally the standard treatment; this retrospective multi-center series demonstrates that ERCP is highly effective and less invasive, shifting the initial management paradigm for symptomatic patients.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· Annals of Medicine (Taylor & Francis), "Clinical perspectives on post-cholecystectomy syndrome: a narrative review," 2025

Decision at stakeWhen cystic duct remnant stones cause post-cholecystectomy syndrome, choose the management approach.

Address the specific underlying cause of persistent or new post-cholecystectomy symptoms after narrowing the heterogeneous differential (retained/CBD stone, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, bile leak/duct injury, bile acid diarrhea, functional dyspepsia/IBS, GERD). …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Address the specific underlying cause of persistent or new post-cholecystectomy symptoms after narrowing the heterogeneous differential (retained/CBD stone, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, bile leak/duct injury, bile acid diarrhea, functional dyspepsia/IBS, GERD). First exclude time-sensitive early postoperative complications, bile leak/duct injury, obstructing retained/CBD stone, biliary obstruction or cholangitis, and treat red-flag features (jaundice, fever, sepsis, or early-onset/worsening pain) as warranting prompt evaluation rather than reassurance; only then reassure that most symptoms settle within 6-12 months, avoid empiric reoperation, and obtain multidisciplinary GI + HPB surgery input for refractory or atypical cases.

Annals of Medicine (Taylor & Francis), "Clinical perspectives on post-cholecystectomy syndrome: a narrative review," 2025 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Arif Y … Issa D · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=90 · Aug 11, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

EUS-guided biopsy using 19-gauge Franseen needle versus percutaneous ultrasound-guided biopsy using 18-gauge full-core cutting needle for parenchymal liver disease: A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial.

New evidenceEUS
What it foundEUS-guided liver biopsy with 19-gauge Franseen needle achieved specimen adequacy (length ≥15 mm and ≥8 complete portal tracts) in 97.8% versus 64.4% with percutaneous 18-gauge biopsy; median specimen lengths were 6.9 cm versus 2.0 cm and median complete portal tracts 42 versus 9.
ContextPreviously there was limited comparative data between endoscopic and percutaneous liver biopsy approaches. This RCT demonstrates EUS-LB's substantial superiority for tissue adequacy, a critical requirement for accurate histologic diagnosis of parenchymal liver disease.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Johri I … Daniel J · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=1,039 · Aug 10, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Clinical impact of disposable elevator-cap duodenoscopes on post-ERCP cholangitis: a prospective cohort study.

New evidenceERCPendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayDEC duodenoscopes do not reduce post-ERCP cholangitis in routine practice. Although surveillance cultures showed superior sterilization, this study does not support institutional adoption of DEC equipment specifically to prevent post-ERCP cholangitis.
What it foundDisposable elevator-cap duodenoscopes achieved zero microbial contamination on surveillance cultures versus contamination detected in conventional duodenoscopes, yet MDR pathogen-associated post-ERCP cholangitis occurred identically in both groups: 2.5% (8/318 DEC vs 18/721 conventional), with no significant difference after propensity score matching.
ContextChallenges the microbiologic rationale for DEC duodenoscopes. The technology achieved superior cleanliness on surveillance culture, yet clinical outcomes for post-ERCP cholangitis were identical to conventional equipment, suggesting the microbiologic benefit does not translate to clinically meaningful infection prevention.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019

Decision at stakeWhether to use disposable elevator-cap duodenoscopes during ERCP to reduce post-ERCP cholangitis risk

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

For right upper quadrant pain, characterize the pattern (acute vs chronic, post-meal vs unrelated, with vs without fever/jaundice) and triage acute red-flag presentations (Murphy sign, Charcot's triad, painless jaundice with weight loss, pregnancy with LFT/coagulation derangement) to the ED. Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Kim CH … Paik WH · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=3,227,805 · Aug 15, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Upper Versus Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Hospitalizations: A National Analysis, 2016-2022.

Epidemiologyepidemiologyhealth serviceshemostasis
What it foundUpper GI bleeding occurred in 83% of GI complications during PCI hospitalizations with 12.4% in-hospital mortality versus 6.1% for lower GI bleeding (adjusted odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.36-2.23), while UGIB incidence rose from 0.90% to 1.13% over 2016-2022.
ContextNational inpatient sample data (2016-2022) document the epidemiology of gastrointestinal bleeding during percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalizations, with distinct incidence, clinical features, and in-hospital outcomes for upper versus lower bleeding events.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Alnounou A … Sengupta N · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=624 · Aug 11, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery in rectal neoplasms: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysisESDrectal canceradenoma
Clinical takeawayBoth ESD and TES remain acceptable organ-preserving options for selected rectal neoplasms with no significant differences in resection and oncologic outcomes; however, certainty of evidence is very low for these outcomes. TES was faster by 21.93 minutes. Safety outcomes were also not significantly different but remain inconclusive (trial sequential analysis). Choose technique based on lesion characteristics, local expertise, and existing proficiency rather than evidence of superiority from this comparison.
What it foundNo significant differences between TES and ESD in en bloc resection (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10), R0 resection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.10), recurrence (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.53-5.67), bleeding, or perforation; TES was faster by 21.93 minutes (95% CI -28.22 to -15.64). Trial sequential analysis found evidence inconclusive for bleeding, perforation, and recurrence.
ContextBoth ESD and TES are established organ-preserving approaches for rectal neoplasms, but direct comparative data from RCTs was limited. This meta-analysis provides the first systematic comparison and suggests neither technique has a clear oncologic advantage in selected patients.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Saeed A … Hayat M · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · Aug 11, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy with the resect-and-discard strategy: a microsimulation study.

Guideline / reviewartificial intelligencecost-effectivenesscomputer-aided detectioncolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayThis is a modeling study comparing strategy costs and outcomes, not a clinical trial of patient outcomes. It suggests that computer-aided detection improved adenoma detection without improving health outcomes compared to non-AI resect-and-discard; adding diagnostic AI (CADx) increased costs without clinical benefit. The findings suggest improved adenoma detection alone may not justify added costs and environmental impact if baseline health outcomes remain unchanged. However, these are model-based conclusions dependent on input assumptions about adenoma progression, detection accuracy, and mortality rates. Real-world adoption decisions about AI tools should consider actual performance, costs, and environmental impact in your setting. Individual gastroenterologists should not change current resect-and-discard practice based on this model.
What it foundIn a Markov model simulating 6 million individuals aged ≥45 years undergoing screening colonoscopy, non-AI resect-and-discard achieved the highest quality-adjusted life years (51.37 million) at lowest cost ($36.6B) and carbon emissions (0.90 million kg CO₂) compared to CADe-assisted RD ($36.9B) or CADe+CADx-assisted RD ($37.4B); differences in QALYs across strategies were <0.01%, and CADe modestly increased adenoma detection without improving health outcomes.
ContextCurrent practice widely promotes computer-aided detection (CADe) and diagnostic (CADx) tools to increase adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy. This model challenges the assumption that detection improvements alone drive health benefit in populations where screening is already reasonably effective, suggesting diminishing returns beyond baseline screening performance. The finding illustrates a general principle: increasing test performance does not always improve patient outcomes if the underlying disease is already well-managed with existing strategies.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakeHow to manage diminutive polyps identified during screening colonoscopy

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Hernandez LV … Pohl H · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=11,177 · Aug 12, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Colonoscopy complications and associated costs and mortality in a Swedish colorectal cancer screening program.

Epidemiologycolonoscopycolorectal cancer screeninghealth servicesepidemiology
Clinical takeawayContinue recommending colonoscopy as the preferred screening modality, as real-world data confirm complications occur in <1% of screening procedures with no increase in mortality and minimal program costs
What it foundBleeding in 47/10,000 screening colonoscopies (RR 52.6); any complication in 86/10,000 (0.86%); no mortality increase vs matched controls (RR 0.4, 95%CI 0.1-1.0); excess healthcare cost €32.88 per procedure.
ContextThis literature reports real-world complication rates and healthcare costs associated with screening colonoscopy in a large population cohort, with complications measured within 7 days of the procedure.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakeUse colonoscopy every 10 years as the preferred Tier 1 screening option for average-risk individuals starting at age 45

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Torbjörnsson E … Blom J · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy review · Aug 13, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Review Article: Immune Effector Cell-Mediated Enterocolitis Following CAR-T Cell Therapy-Clinical Features, Pathophysiology and Management.

Epidemiologybiologicsepidemiology
Clinical takeawayIf a patient presents with gastrointestinal symptoms after CAR-T therapy, suspect immune effector cell-mediated enterocolitis. Pursue early diagnosis via endoscopy and biopsy. Implement multidisciplinary care with supportive measures, infection assessment, and step-up pharmacotherapy using inflammatory bowel disease agents (biologics and small molecules). Early recognition and multidisciplinary treatment may improve patient outcomes.
What it foundImmune effector cell-mediated enterocolitis (IEC-EC) occurs in approximately 6% of CAR-T recipients (typically after B-cell maturation antigen-targeted therapy), presenting with severe diarrhea and malabsorption that responds poorly to treatment and carries a poor prognosis.
ContextIEC-EC is an under-recognized toxicity of CAR-T therapy expanding beyond the already-known cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. This review systematizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical and endoscopic features, and management of a rare but serious complication.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026)

Decision at stakeRecognize immune effector cell-mediated enterocolitis as a distinct diagnosis in patients treated with CAR-T therapy

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. Confirm UC with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step C. difficile testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA chosen by route and extent: suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided disease, oral plus rectal for extensive disease. If 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by efficacy tier, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. Lower: adalimumab. Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. After anti-TNF primary non-response, switch mechanism rather than cycling within the class. Treat to target (STRIDE-II): endoscopic improvement, Mayo endoscopic subscore 0-1. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after diagnosis for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening. Inpatient care now follows the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (13 best-practice statements). Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. Give every patient admitted with diarrhea two-step C. difficile testing. Test for CMV, with early endoscopy, if symptoms worsen, the patient is systemically toxic or disease is steroid-refractory. Give routine VTE prophylaxis with LMWH or fondaparinux unless contraindicated, and individualize post-discharge extension. Give IV methylprednisolone 60 mg/day or equivalent; the AGA living guideline says 40-60 mg/day, and higher doses add no benefit. Do not give adjunctive antibiotics without infection. Involve surgery early. Assess response by day 3 (72 h) using stool frequency and CRP (Oxford criteria); do not continue IV steroids beyond about 7 days without response. Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. Before discharge, the response should be stable and a transition plan should be in place.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Damianos JA … Chowla NM · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=226 · Aug 14, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

An artificial intelligence-based endoscopic ultrasonography risk assessment and stratification for gastric stromal tumors.

Diagnosticartificial intelligenceEUScomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: this model is tested on retrospective EUS images without prospective validation or head-to-head comparison to current GIST risk stratification (Miettinen criteria from pathology). Implementation would require prospective clinical validation demonstrating improved prediction of clinically relevant outcomes.
What it foundXGBoost model achieved 80.68% accuracy and AUC 0.94 on external validation for GIST risk stratification from EUS images
ContextCurrent GIST risk stratification relies on pathology-based Miettinen criteria (tumor size, mitotic rate, and tumor site). This model aims to provide risk assessment from EUS imaging alone, potentially before surgical pathology, but has not been compared to standard prognostication in clinical practice.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· NCCN, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2023

Decision at stakeinterpret endoscopic ultrasound findings to stratify risk in small gastric GISTs and guide surveillance intensity

Localized GIST: small (<2 cm) oesophagogastric or duodenal submucosal nodules should be assessed by endoscopic ultrasound and kept under annual surveillance, with excision reserved for lesions that grow or become symptomatic; if a biopsy diagnosis of GIST is obtained, resection is advised unless major morbidity is expected. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Localized GIST: small (<2 cm) oesophagogastric or duodenal submucosal nodules should be assessed by endoscopic ultrasound and kept under annual surveillance, with excision reserved for lesions that grow or become symptomatic; if a biopsy diagnosis of GIST is obtained, resection is advised unless major morbidity is expected. For all other localized disease, standard treatment is complete surgical excision with microscopically negative (R0) margins, wide margins are not required and routine lymph node dissection is unnecessary because nodal involvement is rare, using function-preserving technique and taking care not to rupture the tumour (rupture worsens prognosis and is treated as metastatic risk). After an R1 (microscopically positive) resection, re-excision may be considered if the original site can be identified and major functional consequences are not expected. Mutational analysis of KIT and PDGFRA is standard practice in all GISTs (it may be omitted only for non-rectal GISTs <2 cm) and guides both prognosis and therapy. Adjuvant imatinib 400 mg/day for 3 years is recommended for completely resected tumours at significant (high) risk of relapse, where risk is estimated from mitotic index, tumour size and tumour site (plus rupture); adjuvant treatment is only appropriate when the mutation is imatinib-sensitive and is not indicated for imatinib-insensitive genotypes such as PDGFRA D842V (and is unlikely to benefit SDH-deficient or NF1-associated GIST). Metastatic or unresectable GIST: first-line imatinib 400 mg/day, except for tumours with a KIT exon 9 mutation where the starting dose is 800 mg/day; treatment is continued indefinitely and should not be interrupted, since interruption is generally followed by progression (surgery of residual/responding metastatic disease may be considered on a case-by-case basis). On progression or intolerance, sequential therapy is second-line sunitinib 50 mg/day (4 weeks on / 2 weeks off, or 37.5 mg/day continuously), third-line regorafenib 160 mg/day (3 weeks on / 1 week off), and fourth-line ripretinib 150 mg/day. PDGFRA D842V-mutant GIST is resistant to imatinib and is treated first-line with avapritinib 300 mg/day (these patients do not receive imatinib).

NCCN, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2023 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Hu SS … Ning B · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=2,100 · Aug 7, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Use of Artificial Intelligence for Duodenal Biopsy for Celiac Disease: Developing a Prediction Model for Histopathology Diagnosis.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayNo direct clinical action yet. This is a retrospective proof-of-concept study demonstrating an AI model can classify archived biopsies, but prospective validation in real clinical practice and comparison to standard pathologist review would be required before clinical deployment. The next step is validating the tool on prospectively collected biopsies.
What it foundA deep learning model achieved 97% accuracy (AUC 0.992) differentiating celiac disease from normal duodenal histology and 76% accuracy (AUC 0.810) distinguishing celiac disease from seronegative villous atrophy on 2,406 whole-slide images from >2,100 patients.
ContextCurrent diagnosis of celiac disease relies on pathologist visual review of duodenal biopsies combined with tTG-IgA serology. This work addresses known challenges in biopsy interpretation including specimen artifacts, poor orientation, and inter-observer variability, but remains at the proof-of-concept stage on archived data.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease" (Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Semrad C, Kelly CP, Greer KB, Limketkai BN, Lebwohl B), Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118(1):59-76, 2023

Decision at stakewhether artificial intelligence should be used to assist in interpreting duodenal biopsy histology for celiac disease diagnosis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

DIAGNOSIS (patient must be on a gluten-containing diet). Serologic testing consists of TTG-IgA plus, if IgA deficiency has not previously been excluded, concurrent total IgA; if IgA deficiency is present, measure an IgG-based serology (DGP-IgG and/or TTG-IgG). This algorithm, previously restricted to those >=2 years, now applies to adults and children at ANY age. An elevated TTG-IgA should proceed to EGD with duodenal biopsy. A negative TTG-IgA in a non-IgA-deficient patient adequately rules out CD only when pretest probability is low or moderate; in symptomatic patients whose pretest suspicion is high (>5%), EGD with duodenal biopsy should be performed irrespective of serologic result. ACG recommends EGD with multiple duodenal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of CD (STRONG recommendation, moderate quality; 1 dissent); sampling should be 1 or 2 biopsies from the bulb (9-o'clock or 12-o'clock position) and at least 4 from the distal duodenum. Lymphocytic duodenosis (>=25 IELs/100 epithelial cells) without villous atrophy is NOT specific for CD. NONBIOPSY PATHWAY (CONDITIONAL recommendation, moderate quality): a combination of high-level TTG-IgA (>10x ULN) with a positive EMA in a SECOND blood sample is suggested as reliable for diagnosis in CHILDREN, and only if the family agrees with the no-biopsy strategy; in SYMPTOMATIC ADULTS unwilling or unable to undergo upper GI endoscopy the same criteria may be considered AFTER THE FACT, as a diagnosis of 'likely CD', ACG does not endorse a prospective no-biopsy pathway in adults, noting a >=10-fold TTG-IgA elevation carries a PPV of only ~95% in adults, which may be unacceptably low given lifelong treatment implications. HLA-DQ2/DQ8 is not required for diagnosis but is useful for serology-histology discrepancy or in patients already on a GFD; if negative, CD is ruled out. TREATMENT AND MONITORING. Strict lifelong GFD. A visit with a dietitian after diagnosis is MANDATORY, with subsequent visits as needed to reinforce education and adherence encouraged; interview with a dietitian experienced in the GFD is the standard of care for assessing adherence. ACG RECOMMENDS consumption of gluten-free oats (STRONG recommendation, moderate quality), with the qualifier that gluten contamination of oats, variable toxicity across oat varieties, and a small risk of immune reaction to avenin require monitoring for oat tolerance (monitoring intervals are not known). ACG suggests AGAINST routine use of gluten detection devices in food or biospecimens (conditional, low quality; 1 dissent), and finds INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to recommend for or against probiotics (evidence gap). ACG suggests setting a goal of intestinal healing as an end point of GFD therapy, advocating individualized discussion of goals beyond clinical and serological remission (CONDITIONAL recommendation, low quality). Follow-up may require multiple visits in the first year (e.g. 3, 6, and 12 months) and regular visits (e.g. twice a year or yearly) thereafter, tracking symptoms and TTG or DGP serology; other tests may include CBC, ALT, AST, vitamins A/D/E/B12, copper, zinc, folic acid, ferritin, and iron, with follow-up bloodwork individualized to verify correction of values abnormal at baseline. Preventive care includes vaccines and DXA. Symptoms improve within days of strict adherence (diarrhea improved in 80% within 60 days), but mucosal healing lags: median time from GFD onset to mucosal healing in adults is 3 years, so it is reasonable to consider a follow-up biopsy in adults after 2 years of starting a GFD, in the ABSENCE of symptoms, after shared decision-making; children heal faster (95% within 2 years), altering the risk-benefit calculus. Repeat biopsy is the only reliable method to document mucosal healing, seroconversion correlates poorly. Upper endoscopy with biopsies is also indicated for lack of clinical response or relapse of symptoms despite a GFD. VACCINATION: ACG suggests vaccination to prevent pneumococcal disease in patients with CD (CONDITIONAL recommendation, low quality), because increased pneumococcal risk is attributed to hyposplenism (frequently subclinical) present in roughly one-third of patients. The regimen follows CDC recommendations by age, immunization record, and comorbidity: for an adult with CD and functional asplenia not previously vaccinated or with unknown history, 1 dose of PCV15 (followed by PPSV23 at least 1 year later) or 1 dose of PCV20 (no PPSV23 indicated); for an adult with CD and no other condition carrying a specific CDC recommendation, ACG suggests 1 dose of PCV20 alone, or 1 dose of PCV15 first and then consider PPSV23 at least 1 year later. NONRESPONSIVE CD (NRCD): defined as persistent symptoms, signs, or laboratory abnormalities typical of CD despite 6-12 MONTHS of dietary gluten avoidance. Evaluation should review and confirm the initial diagnosis of CD, assess for inadvertent gluten exposure (via expert dietitian assessment and serology, positive serologies despite 12 months of GFD suggest ongoing gluten ingestion), assess for a coexisting functional disorder, and selectively test based on clinical suspicion for food intolerances (e.g. lactose, fructose), pancreatic insufficiency, microscopic colitis, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, among others. REFRACTORY CD (RCD) is a separate, rarer entity (<1% of patients outside referral centers): ongoing malabsorptive symptoms and signs with villous atrophy despite strict adherence to a GFD for MORE THAN 12 months and absence of other disorders including overt lymphoma; initial assessment centers on distinguishing RCD type 1 from type 2 by CD3/CD8 immunostains, T-cell receptor clonality by PCR, and/or flow cytometry of duodenal biopsies.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease" (Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Semrad C, Kelly CP, Greer KB, Limketkai BN, Lebwohl B), Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118(1):59-76, 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Jansson-Knodell CL … Rubio-Tapia A · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=332 · Aug 10, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Confounding by Indication in Real-World Indomethacin Use for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Implications for Severity and Cost.

New evidenceERCPacute pancreatitiscost-effectivenesshealth services
Clinical takeawayThis observational study cannot reliably determine indomethacin's protective effect due to confounding by indication (drug use associated with procedural difficulty rather than independent risk reduction). While severe pancreatitis occurred only in the non-indomethacin group (underpowered), confounding precludes attributing this to the drug. RCT-based guidelines recommending indomethacin should continue to direct practice.
What it foundRectal indomethacin (30% of cases) was not independently associated with PEP in adjusted analysis (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.32-4.56, p=0.74); use was strongly driven by procedural difficulty, indicating confounding by indication. True independent predictors of PEP were guidewire passage into the pancreatic duct (OR 5.25, p=0.004) and prior PEP (OR 5.68, p=0.001).
ContextRCTs support indomethacin for PEP prevention in high-risk cases. This real-world cohort demonstrates confounding by indication: drug administration correlates with procedural difficulty rather than independently reducing PEP. Selective prophylaxis cannot be evaluated observationally when drug use is driven by baseline risk.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), 'American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: summary and recommendations' (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97(2):153-162). DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.005, PMID 36517310.

Decision at stakeGive periprocedural rectal NSAID prophylaxis to all patients undergoing ERCP

For ALL patients undergoing ERCP (average-risk and high-risk alike), give periprocedural rectal NSAID prophylaxis (100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac) unless contraindicated (e.g., recent PUD, renal insufficiency), this is now a strong recommendation for unselected patients, not just high-risk ones. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

For ALL patients undergoing ERCP (average-risk and high-risk alike), give periprocedural rectal NSAID prophylaxis (100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac) unless contraindicated (e.g., recent PUD, renal insufficiency), this is now a strong recommendation for unselected patients, not just high-risk ones. For high-risk patients undergoing repeated or deep pancreatic-duct access or ampullectomy, add a prophylactic small-caliber pancreatic duct stent (3-5Fr, preferably 5Fr, 3-7cm, removed within 5-10 days), strong recommendation; for other high-risk scenarios (difficult cannulation, prior PEP, precut sphincterotomy without fistulotomy), PD stenting is a conditional recommendation when PD access is easily achieved. Aggressive periprocedural/postprocedural IV hydration with lactated Ringer's (20 mL/kg bolus, then 3 mL/kg/h for 8h) is a conditional suggestion for unselected patients (most practical for inpatients), and wire-guided cannulation is conditionally favored over contrast-guided to reduce PEP risk. The SVI trial (Elmunzer, Lancet 2024) found rectal indomethacin alone did NOT meet non-inferiority versus indomethacin+stent in high-risk patients (PEP 14.9% vs 11.3%), supporting continued use of the combination bundle in high-risk cases rather than dropping the stent. Post-procedure, monitor for the major complications (pancreatitis, sphincterotomy bleeding, perforation, cholangitis) and manage by type, PEP by Cotton criteria with fluids/analgesia, bleeding with repeat endoscopic hemostasis, perforation by Stapfer classification with surgical consult for Type I, and cholangitis with empiric antibiotics (Tokyo Guidelines TG18) plus biliary drainage; these complication-management elements are unchanged from ESGE 2020.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), 'American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: summary and recommendations' (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97(2):153-162). DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.005, PMID 36517310. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Eshov A … Datta S · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy systematic review · Aug 7, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Sarcopenia as a prognostic marker in inflammatory bowel disease: Implications for endoscopic outcomes and loss of response to biologic therapy-A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

DiagnosticCrohn's diseasebiologicsbiomarkersystematic review
Clinical takeawayDo not implement routine sarcopenia assessment for IBD risk stratification or treatment decisions. The evidence is observational and heterogeneous with inconsistent findings; sarcopenia may reflect disease severity, malnutrition, or inflammatory burden rather than independently predict outcomes.
What it foundObservational studies report associations between sarcopenia and worse endoscopic outcomes, postoperative recurrence, and loss of biologic response in IBD, but findings are inconsistent across studies, heterogeneous definitions limit interpretation, and causality is not established.
ContextSarcopenia intuitively suggests poor prognosis in IBD due to malnutrition and inflammation, but this systematic review clarifies that the associations, while suggested by emerging observational studies, are not yet established as independent prognostic factors. The evidence remains hypothesis-generating, arguing against premature adoption of sarcopenia assessment into routine practice.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakewhether to assess sarcopenia for risk stratification or treatment selection in Crohn's disease

… DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes MILD-TO-MODERATE.

Our full summary of this standard

Two current US guidelines govern Crohn's disease and should be read together. ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al.) remains the reference for diagnosis, mild-to-moderate disease, perianal, postoperative and abscess management. DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. Advanced-therapy-naive: suggest higher-efficacy agents (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab) over lower-efficacy ones (certolizumab pegol, upadacitinib). Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). Suggest against thiopurine monotherapy for induction; suggest it for maintenance of remission. Suggest SC/IM methotrexate monotherapy; suggest against oral methotrexate. In thiopurine-naive patients starting infliximab, suggest infliximab + thiopurine over infliximab alone. No recommendation on IFX + MTX, adalimumab + immunomodulator, or non-TNF biologic + immunomodulator. After ≥6 months of steroid-free remission on anti-TNF + immunomodulator, suggest withdrawing the immunomodulator and suggest against withdrawing the anti-TNF. SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). No recommendation on treating to endoscopic vs symptomatic remission. The ACG 2025 moderate-to-severe recommendations (anti-TNF, IFX + thiopurine combination and IL-12/23/IL-23 agents, each strong/moderate; upadacitinib after anti-TNF exposure; steroids for short-term induction only; TPMT/NUDT15 testing before thiopurines) still stand alongside AGA. ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY (AGA Clinical Practice Update, CGH 2026; details below come from AGA news coverage, not the full text, and are ungraded advice): get cross-sectional imaging before the procedure. Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). Longer or multiple strictures, or ≥3 risk factors, favor surgery.

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Fuchs T, Stadlbauer V · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №6 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS